Samanta, J. - (1.) This appeal is by the claimants-appellants against the judgment and award dated 11th June, 2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Contai, Midnapore in M.A.C. Case No. 14 of 2000. The aforesaid claim case was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Claimants-appellants on the death of one Kanailal Ghorai in a motor accident on 6th August, 1999.The claimants-appellants are the widow and two minor children of the said deceased.
(2.) The rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question by its driver and the Insurance cover of the same on the date of the accident were proved in evidence before the Claims Tribunal. The deceased at the relevant point of time was employed as Sweeper of the A.K.B. Public Health Centre, Midnapore. It was further proved by Exhibit-8, the Salary Certificate issued by the employer of the victim that he earned a gross salary of Rs. 4,472/- per month. Out of the aforesaid gross amount a sum of Rs. 300A on account of G.P.F. a sum of Rs. 10/- on account of Group Insurance and a sum of Rs. 30/- on account of Professional Tax were deducted and, therefore, the net amount drawn by the deceased was at the rate of Rs. 4,132/- per month. Evidently, the deceased died at the age of 31 years. The learned Claims Tribunal determined the quantum of compensation by taking into the gross salary of the deceased victim and thereby multiplying the applier of 17 on the basis of age of the deceased upon deduction of 1/3rd of the gross salary on account of personal expenses of the said victim. The learned Claims Tribunal thereafter made a further deduction of Rs. 1,08,190/- from the total amount arrived at by above such calculation on the ground that there was some uncertainty of having such income regularly by the victim had he been alive.
(3.) This judgment and award has been challenged by the claimants- appellants on the ground that since the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants-appellants was determined by applying the multiplier method as per the second schedule to the above Act so there was no further scope of deduction of any amount on such reasons particularly when such method has been fixed in the aforesaid second schedule by taking into account all such factors. This would further be evident from the fact that as per the second schedule, the multiplier of 17 is applicable to the victim falling within the age group of 30-35 years. If 17 is added to the maximum age of 35 years, it would be 52 years of age, by which a service holder does not normally reach the age of superannuation. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Claims Tribunal acted illegally by deducting a further sum of Rs. 1,08,190/- from the amount of compensation determined by him by applying the aforesaid multiplier of 17 on the annual income of the deceased victim after making necessary deduction of 1/3rd of the same for his personal expenses.;